Podcasts about fifth risk

In this Best of 2025-episode, Best-selling author Michael Lewis discusses his new book, Who Is Government?: The Untold Story of Public Service. As Americans' distrust in the government continues to grow, Lewis' book examines how the government works, who works for it, and why their contributions continue to matter. Jeffrey Rosen, CEO Emeritus of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall series on March 26, 2025.  Resources  Michael Lewis, ed., ⁠Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service⁠ (2025)  Michael Lewis, “⁠The free‑living bureaucrat⁠,” The Washington Post (March 2025)  Michael Lewis, “⁠Directions to a journalistic gold mine⁠,” The Washington Post (Nov. 2024)  Michael Lewis, ⁠The Premonition: A Pandemic Story⁠ (2022)  Michael Lewis, ⁠The Fifth Risk ⁠(2018)  ⁠CURE ID  Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org ⁠⁠⁠⁠  Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr    Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠   Explore ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness⁠⁠⁠⁠   ⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate   Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen   Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠   Support our important work  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate 

Friends,I recently had the delight of conversing with acclaimed author Michael Lewis (The Big Short, Liar's Poker, Moneyball, Flash Boys, Going Infinite, The Fifth Risk, The Premonition, The Blind Side, The Undoing Project, Boomerang, and, most recently, Who Is Government?). I asked him to join me to discuss our recent books. Our subject was Trump, but our conversation ranged from the political to the personal. It occurred before a live audience and was great fun. I thought this holiday week a perfect occasion to share it with you. My thanks to Michael. Hope you had a happy holiday and have a restful weekend. Oh, and you look great. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Harry sits down with Michael Lewis—author of Moneyball and The Fifth Risk—to discuss Who Is Government?, his new book spotlighting the unsung public servants who quietly hold the country together. They trace the project's roots to Trump's chaotic transition, explore the GOP-led assault on federal expertise, and ask: Can the damage be undone? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when you appoint an incredibly incompetent white nationalist to be the Secretary of Defense? https://youtu.be/8hvWzy-RqZo?s...

Michael Lewis, acclaimed author of The Big Short, Moneyball and The Fifth Risk joins Lovett to discuss his most recent book, Who is Government? Lewis and his coauthors profile the civil servants whose thankless and unglamorous work prevents mines from collapsing, castaways from drowning, and rare diseases from killing people. He and Jon talk about why it's so important to break down the “bureaucrat” stereotype right now, why Lewis is convinced Elon Musk has no idea how to run DOGE, and what leads the people he writes about to stand up to Trump or succumb to their personal ambition. To enjoy ad-free episodes of Pod Save America, and more, subscribe to our Friends of the Pod Community now at crooked.com/friends or directly on Apple Podcasts! For a limited time, start your 30 day free trial today.

Best-selling author Michael Lewis discusses his new book, Who Is Government?: The Untold Story of Public Service. As Americans' distrust in the government continues to grow, Lewis' book examines how the government works, who works for it, and why their contributions continue to matter. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  Resources Michael Lewis, ed., Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service (2025) Michael Lewis, “The free‑living bureaucrat,” The Washington Post (March 2025) Michael Lewis, “Directions to a journalistic gold mine,” The Washington Post (Nov. 2024) Michael Lewis, The Premonition: A Pandemic Story (2022) Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk (2018) CURE ID Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Best-selling author Michael Lewis discusses his new book, Who Is Government?: The Untold Story of Public Service, with Jeffrey Rosen. As government programs face political headwinds, Lewis and his favorite writers examine the human stories of the heroic civil servants who make government work and why their contributions matter.  This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall series on March 26, 2025.  Resources Michael Lewis, ed., Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service (2025) Michael Lewis, “The free‑living bureaucrat,” The Washington Post (March 2025) Michael Lewis, “Directions to a journalistic gold mine,” The Washington Post (Nov. 2024) Michael Lewis, The Premonition: A Pandemic Story (2022) Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk (2018) CURE ID Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

For many people, the mention of government work conjures images of endless red tape and bureaucracy. In reality, though, federal employees are doing life-changing work every day. They fight hurricanes, advance cutting-edge research, protect children, and manage millions of acres of public lands. But with leadership turnover, political transitions, and cultural challenges, the system often struggles to attract and retain the talent it needs. Cameron Kober is working to change that.Cameron Kober is a Senior Manager at the Partnership for Public Service, where he leads initiatives like the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings to help agencies improve leadership, culture, and engagement. With a background in teaching and a passion for public service, Cameron is dedicated to creating better workplaces for federal employees and supporting their mission to serve the public.In this episode, Dart and Cameron discuss:- What motivates federal employees to serve- How mission-driven work boosts engagement- The challenge of leadership turnover in government- Adapting to rapid political transitions- Improving workplaces through Best Places to Work rankings- Building trust and transparency in government- Leadership lessons from public service- And other topics…Cameron Kober is a Senior Manager at the Partnership for Public Service. He leads initiatives like the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings, helping agencies improve culture, leadership, and engagement. Cameron also manages the Preparing to Lead program, which develops future federal leaders. Before joining the Partnership, he was a middle school teacher in Florida, where he discovered his passion for public service. He has written articles on employee engagement and leadership, offering tips to improve workplace culture.Resources mentioned:The Partnership for Public Service: https://ourpublicservice.org/Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Rankings: https://bestplacestowork.org/The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis: https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Risk-Michael-Lewis/dp/1324002646Connect with Cameron: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cameron-kober-b6672a55/Work with Dart:Dart is the CEO and co-founder of the work design firm 11fold. Build work that makes employees feel alive, connected to their work, and focused on what's most important to the business. Book a call at 11fold.com.

Lauren Oyler's “Revenge Plot”, a literary diary of her trip to this year's Republican convention in Milwaukee, is the cover story of this month's Harper's. So when I talked today with the Berlin based writer, we discussed both the revengefulness of the Republican party and what she calls the “risk aversion” of the Democrats. While Oyler cares a lot about the outcome of today's election, she is wary of what she calls the “constant catastrophizing” both on the left and right of American politics. While this probably won't be the final election in the history of American democracy, she suggests, it might be the first 21st century Presidential contest not dramatically shaped by the internet. LAUREN OYLER's essays on books and culture appear regularly in The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, London Review of Books, Harper's Magazine, Bookforum, and other publications. Born and raised in West Virginia, she now divides her time between New York and Berlin.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. The day has come, it's Tuesday, November the 5th. Election Day. We don't know who's won, but many people are going to the polls. One person who won't be going to the polls is my guest today, Lauren Oyler. She's a distinguished American writer, bestselling writer, essayist, critic. But she happens to be, as I joked before, we went live in exile in Berlin. She lives there in Germany, but she's also the author of an excellent piece, it's the cover story of Harper's this week: "Reunion or Revenge: The GOP Identity Crisis." According to Lauren, they're on the brink. I'm not sure of what. Lauren is joining us from Berlin in Germany. Lauren, what's the view from there? Americans looking as crazy as ever?Lauren Oyler: We're looking for a bar to go to. To be honest, we've been we've been we've been caucusing, trying to figure out where we can watch the the results. And we just found there's one place. But, you know, it doesn't the results aren't really start coming in until midnight here. So the debate is about whether we will stay up--or, people have some bad memories of doing that in 2016. I personally have a bad memory of doing that in 2016 as well. So the view is we're looking at our phones.Keen: So I assume the bad memory was not that you drank too much or ate too much.Oyler: No, I did. I certainly did. I'm just I was with my boyfriend at the time and we had gotten in a fight earlier that day about Hillary Clinton. And I, I just remember being like, I just don't care. I just don't care. And then we went to the bar with our friends and got quite drunk. And and then we were walking home and I didn't live here at the time, so I didn't have we didn't have cell phone service. So we walked home at like three in the morning. We were really drunk and we were like, Well, we won't know anything. And then we got home and we like, laid in bed in the dark and and looked at our phones and we were like, no, this is terrible. So and then just laid in bed again, really drunk looking at our phones.Keen: It's something that could have occurred in one of your books or maybe in a in a DeLillo book. So are the Germans shocked? I mean, they they they've made a culture out of being a shock to other people that they particularly shocked this time around?Oyler: No, I don't think so. I remember right before I went to report this story, I was in a restaurant down the street from my house and I listened to--I was overhearing a conversation with this German guy, was talking to these people and he was like, he was he was like, Yeah, have you heard they have the plague in Colorado now? He's like, Yeah, this is crazy. Imagine if we had the plague in Berlin. Like, it was really like, I don't really think they sort of like, Yeah, this is crazy, but it's, you know, it's not it's not the first time. And I think to and in Europe, it used to be that you were reviled as an American. Certainly when I first moved here in 2012, there was still that kind of anti-American sentiment. But now far right populism has spread across the West and everybody is sort of commiserating with with you and just kind of like, you know, it could happen. It could happen to us at any time. It basically is the idea.Keen: The plague has come home to Germany from Colorado. So let's get to the piece, Lauren, you went to Milwaukee to cover the GOP's identity crisis. And it's a long essay. Very...to use the word Oyler-ish in the sense that it's it's a very creative piece of work, creative nonfiction, although some people might say there's a fictional element there. What was your overall take on this odd convention and why was it that it's almost five months ago now?Oyler: Yeah. Well, I think the big the the big concern that I had going into it was that, you know, you're right, it would be coming out it came out in the middle of October, and I would be reporting on something that had happened in July, which, of course, in the past would have been perfectly normal for this kind of piece of this kind of like literary new journalism type thing. Many, many great pieces about political conventions that I'm sure your listeners, listeners will be familiar with, things like Norman Mailer, they come out late. But, you know, now--Keen: It's timeless as well in their own way. I mean--Oyler: It's supposed to be timeless, but now everybody's sort of attitude towards the news is like, I need to hear it right now. And then it the cycle, the cycle, the cycle and it goes away. So you sort of forget about it. So I kind of was grateful for the assignment because the assignment was basically like write something of lasting literary value about about the circus and spectacle, which was very interesting. And, you know, it was sort of you're following the news as it's happening and you're like, well, I can't really like you just have to be aware of the general narrative as time has gone on, you can't really be too obsessed with anyone's story because as I learned when former President Trump was almost assassinated while I was on the plane there, like something can just completely derail the whole plan. But I had never been to a political convention before. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed doing that kind of reporting. And I was surprised at how at the dissonance between what was being reported by these live up to the minute coverage, like blogs or social media or things like this. The difference between the analysis that those those journalists would generally produce and what I was interested in or even like what I thought the mood was, frankly, as, as the title of the piece and the sort of the tag line suggests, like it was a bit fraught, I think, for the Republicans. I think I think the liberal media generally tends to want to keep to the storyline that they are evil masterminds of the chaos that they saw. But I what I saw there at least, was kind of a fracturing basically.Keen: Right? I mean, I think that the more I watch or listen to liberal media or mainstream media, they behave as if they're the grownups and. And perhaps some of these photos actually underline the fact that it's the Republicans who were the children. For better or worse, they're out of control. They need to be sent to their room and perhaps spanked, although I'm guessing most liberal media people don't believe in spanking anymore. I'm curious, Lauren. I had lunch with Rick MacArthur, the publisher of Harper's few months ago in New York. And like all publishers of traditional magazines, he claims poverty, not enough money to go around. Couldn't you find someone a bit closer? I mean, I assume he paid for you to fly from Berlin to Milwaukee. That's quite a long way. Why didn't he find a local person, or do you think he chose you, or they chose you, the editor chose you because you bring a slightly foreign perspective?Oyler: Do you don't think I'm such a good writer that it's worth flying me over there?Keen: Did they pay for first class?Oyler: No, it was was economy, which was good, actually, because I got I had some interesting conversations with my senior and they did say, you know, we won't pay for paper business, but I did buy the expensive internet in the end. But and I think I was staying in a Hampton Inn. Do you know how do you know how the--Keen: My God. So they put you up in a Hampton Inn?Oyler: Do you know how it works? So when you go to a convention, there's like the convention as the press, the press corps or the convention, if you like, a place to stay. And so many of the delegates were staying like in Madison, Wisconsin, or in Illinois, and I was in the same hotel as the USA Today people. So that speaks to me being like the, you know, the national and the the government's like belief in the value of Harper's magazine in comparison to other other places. So it was maybe like 20 minute drive away anyway. Non sequitur. So why do you think they asked me to go? Maybe because I do have a little bit of foreign perspective, I think to it is not you know, it is nice to have a literary writer juice politics coverage. You know, there's a long history of this. Norman Mailer is a wonderful introduction to this book that I have about ranting about journalists and reporters and why it's important to bring a novelistic eye to things. Joan Didion, obviously famously, and all sorts of other examples. George Saunders did a did a Trump rally in 2016. I think Patricia Lockwood did one as well. So I think there's that kind of tradition that that Harper's is a part of and wants to sort of continue in the face of maybe people saying that literary writing has no place in society anymore. But also, I assume that my being from Appalachia has something to do with it because, yes, as you say, I live in Berlin, but I was born and grew up in West Virginia, and although we did not know J.D. Vance was going to be selected as the VP when they assigned me this piece, it wasn't always a strong possibility. And I think the region sort of exerts a pull on the national media at least every four years. So I would assume that that also has something to do with it.Keen: That's interesting that, you know, the the other side of the Appalachian coin from J.D. Vance. You mentioned earlier, Lauren, that the the media reported on this differently from bloggers and some of the online crowd. What are the differences? Can you generalize about how the USA Today crowd covered it verses bloggers who perhaps weren't there or watching online?Oyler: Yeah, well, I think there is a certain kind of convention story that is just like we're here, there's someone on TV, they're doing a stand up. They have someone shooting them and they're just like, I'm here live at the convention. Like, here's how crazy it is. But the thing that I talk about in the piece especially is this Ezra Klein sort of blog about the convention. And I believe the headline that he wrote was for his podcast about it was I watched the Republican National Convention. Here's whatever, and that kind of dramatic headline style that that has been honed on the Internet--Keen: And this was a New York Times piece--Oyler: Well, the New York Times Piece...I watched the Republican National Convention on television. Why does that...anyone can watch the Republican National Convention on television. And they want it to be like a dramatic sort of...a little bit dangerous feeling that it did have at points. But but the thing that was surprising to me was how unenthusiastic many of the people there were or who were just there because, you know, they go every been ten times or whatever.Keen: I mean, you have some great photos in the piece of people looking pretty miserable, which of course probably makes most of us feel better about it. And I mean this one in particular for people watching a couple of white middle class people with cheese hats, one with a "Make America Great Again" sign, the other, "bring back common sense." They look most uncommon and most miserable.Oyler: And it's not to say that there wasn't, there were many sort of disturbing moments of enthusiasm, I think. But they weren't always the people on stage that you would--the biggest applause that I remember was not for Trump or for J.D. Vance. Of course, those went on forever. But this sort of passion, like the sort of scary passion that the media wants to find it in the Republicans. I noticed it most with Peter Navarro, who had just gotten out of prison that day and offering to give a trial, which was so bizarre and people were just screaming their heads off for him.Keen: And he's a China hater.Oyler: Yes, I can never remember what the sort of White House department of something that they invented that he was the head of. It was some kind of trade council.Keen: Like Go to War with China Department.Oyler: Yes. Yes. And he had just been let out of prison and he was missing a tooth. Which was really bizarre. And then Tucker Carlson, everybody was going crazy for it because he's like a celebrity. But there was not this kind of excitement for, say, Kid Rock or something like this. Or even Hulk Hogan.Keen: Yeah. So here's the question for you. Lauren, I think you're as well-positioned in every sense to to answer this question, which is the question I struggle with and I've talked to I've talked about endlessly on this show and I haven't resolved I'm sure I've bored most of my viewers and listeners. You mentioned Hulk Hogan, of course, the ultimate wrestler. In fact, I had Peter Osnos on the show last week. It was the original editor of Art of the Deal, and he said when he was editing out of the deal, he went with Trump to a wrestling contest, and Trump was enormously popular there back then, 30 or 40 years ago. To what extent is this whole--and I use this word carefully--spectacle, just wrestling. To what extent is it just another version of reality television and everyone understands in an odd kind of way that they're participating in this weird narrative. You've done a lot of thinking and writing on this in terms of the Internet, although some of the people participating in this are pre-Internet people. I mean, Trump is Mr. Reality television. So this goes back before the Internet. But to what extent is this, I don't know, reality, hyper reality, beyond reality, and how does it connect with--there is a reality of America on November the 5th, 2024. I hope that's a--I'm not sure it's a particularly clear question, but gives you an opportunity to talk about how you perceive this whole spectacle or circus.Oyler: Well, I think it's I think that the Republican Party and I think the American society in general, certainly American media, has been in a kind of transitional phase since 2020. Don't quote me on that, but like generally, like since Trump's term was a very crystal clear political moment in the country, I think. And it did make a lot of people sort of immediately think back and say what, what did I miss about the last ten, 15 years that led to this? Like, why didn't I see this coming? Why didn't I expect Donald Trump to be elected president in 2016? And that led to all this kind of--the things that you're referencing, which are, you know, reality, the effects of reality television and the effects of social media, you know, the sort of the the sense that--the desire for kind of like a more immediate relationship to our media that develops--all these things kind of developed in tandem, which is to say that, you know, someone who's watching the Hills on MTV, which is sort of my demographic, is not going to be the same kind of person who's watching wrestling per say. But there are many things that those two kinds of programing have in common, right? And it is kind of the ironic presentation of reality and scare quotes, right? And I think that Donald Trump, obviously a reality television host himself and and and certainly involved in professional wrestling can like sort of tap into could tap into that. But I don't think we're in that period anymore. I don't you know nobody is we aren't I hope we don't have graduate students writing dissertations on the on the Kardashians anymore which is what, you know that was such a prominent force in the media and in the sort of 2010s during Obama's administration. And I don't know exactly like what is next, right? The conversations we're having now are all about AI. They're all about Elon Musk. But it's certainly not this like pro-wrestling spectacle thing anymore. And I think you can see that because it's not as if that was that was not new, part of part of the spectacle that was created by the by the Hulk Hogan stuff was like that it was so surprising. But you can't keep bringing Hulk Hogan out every for, you know, you can't have them every four years. I'm sorry.Keen: An immortal Hulk Hogan or for that matter, Trump.Oyler: Yeah, yeah. And I do think that--picking J.D. Vance as the vice presidential nominee does indicate that they are trying to sort of move forward and kind of set the path for Trumpism after Trump. As many...that's not my phrase. It's a phrase everybody everybody uses, because also Trumpism is the most successful kind of Republican movement in a long time. You might remember the Tea Party didn't arrive. But there's a lot of dissent about that, I think. I think a lot of older people in the party that I talked to when I was at the convention were dissatisfied with Trump. And they would say, you know, I actually never liked him. I didn't vote for him in the primary in 2016. I would prefer he not do this. I overheard a man giving an interview to some some wire service and he, he really sounded like he was having an identity crisis. Like he was like, I don't know. This is not the party I grew up with. This is not the party I joined. What am I going to do? So there are lots of these older guys who feel that way. And then on the other side, there are lots of these young guys who I talked to who are kind of young Republicans in their early 20s, and they also don't really care. It's not like they're excited about Donald Trump. They're like excited by the kind of meme-ified free market capitalism opportunities that the Republicans sort of scoop up, right? Like they like crypto. They like, you know, they're like they have some really confused ideas about tariffs, which if you if you press them on it a little bit, you would say maybe you actually should vote for a Democrat because Trump is just putting more tariffs on things, just all sorts of things.Keen: By the way, it's the first time in this conversation, Lauren, I've heard the the West Virginian twang when you when you said tariffs. Say it again.Oyler: Tariffs? I mean, I can do it all day if you want. I was anticipating you asking me to perform the accent. Maybe when we talk about a little bit more about J.D. Vance.Keen: Yeah.Oyler: But but, yeah--Keen: Tariffs, and what about China? Could you do China?Oyler: Well, you know, I lived in Beijing for about two months.Keen: I mean, JD, is he the fool here or is he the one who's being made to look like a fool, do you think?Oyler: I think he's allowing himself to be made to look like a fool. I don't think that...Keen: Does he know what he's doing here?Oyler: Yeah. I mean, does he know what he's doing entirely? No. Does he know what he's doing? More than, like, Donald Trump's kids? Yes.Keen: It isn't hard, especially the boys. The girls disappeared, right? I think our girls have disappeared.Oyler: And yeah, good for them. I think I saw on Twitter that it's Ivanka's 43rd birthday today.Keen: Maybe a happy birthday, Ivanka, if you're well, I'm sure you've got better things to do. Although, she does seem to be participating. I'm sure she's severely embarrassed now by the whole thing.Oyler: Yeah, I think that that's a big issue for, you know, they're just they're struggling to have like a base for Trump anymore. And there is like a base for Republican, like a Republican Party base. But it doesn't seem like there's that many.Keen: Yeah, and your essay is entitled "The GOP's Identity Crisis." Maybe it should be "The Trump Family's Identity Crisis."Oyler: Yeah. I mean, he's he's not going to be around for that much longer.Keen: Yeah. I mean, what you said was interesting about talking to a lot of older people who suggested they don't like Trump. I mean, if he loses today, who knows what's going to happen? But if he does indeed lose and relatively decisively in the sense that it's clear that he lost. Do you think the knives are going to be out in your experience in Milwaukee? Yeah, there are enough people in the Republican Party will say enough is enough. This guy's a loser and we need to move on.Oyler: I mean, I think you can't lose two times in a row. You know, I mean, I think that there is enough...It's it's hard to say, well, what are the billionaires going to do? Like, what's Elon Musk going to do? What? Like, where's the money going to go? I don't know. I think they are trying to set up...to me at the convention, it seemed to me that, like J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy are the are the people that are sort of creating the most enthusiasm. But at the same time, you do have this kind of thing which the Democrats start with in 2016 and in 2020, which is that the younger members of the party have sort of radically different kind of Internet inflected ideas about what they want from the party. And the older guard is sort of scandalized a little bit by that. And it's kind of like a power struggle that will be interesting to watch if if Trump loses. And even if he wins, frankly.Keen: The narrative, the traditional narrative in mainstream media over the last few days has been mostly about men. Men, male and female voters, black and white voters, which is always a feature. And young and old voters. What wisdom did you derive on those fronts from from Milwaukee? Were there any young people there or any black people there? Were there any women there?Oyler: Were there any young people, black people or women there? Yes, there were there. It does skew older. It's very white. And, you know, the women who are there generally wives, even if they're also delegates, like they're not the main event. They don't have a Sarah Palin at this point right? There was...many of the women who spoke on stage were given a pink backdrop. They're very welcoming to women and minorities and young people. The rhetoric is all very much, we're not racist. America is not racist country. This is not a racist party. Over and over again, Tim Scott gave a big speech about how the Republicans aren't racist. Amber Rose Kanye West's ex-girlfriend, gave a big speech about how Republicans aren't racist. There was all this kind of state saying how not racist they were. And, you know, on the ground, obviously most people are white, most people are old, and most people are men. So, it was not super convincing, but it is kind of interesting to watch them say that because, of course, even ten years ago, they would have never cared about any of that, any of those kinds of points.Keen: Early on in the piece, you mentioned DeLillo. To what extent did he, especially in White Noise, did he predict all this? I mean, not just him, but that school of American writing.Oyler: But do you think they're predicting it or they're just observing their own time, and actually, it hasn't changed?Keen: I guess, yeah. I remember a review, I think it was Andrew Hagan's review in the New York Review of Books after 9/11, in which they were reviewing one of one of DeLillo's books about terrorism. I know Hagan wrote about DeLillo in the sense that reality kind of overtaking, maybe, his prediction or his his kind of work. It must be, again, to use a word, surreal here to to see this world that DeLillo already imagined in practice.Oyler: Well, I think he's probably talking about Underworld. But I think it's maybe our idea of of history being kind of flawed rather than DeLillo's being overtaken. I do think DeLillo has some struggles writing about the Internet, but that's fine. But I think, too, because I was reading so much of these convention pieces from the 60s and 70s, the conversation is the same. And that's nonfiction, right? And so I actually think this kind of like apocalyptic rhetoric and and ever greater spectacle, it does sort of get ever greater, but it has always been getting ever greater. And so I don't know that DeLillo has been like overtaken, because also people can read. People read, you know, Libra now, which is all about in the wake of the failed assassination attempt on Trump. Everybody was talking about Libra, which is about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the kind of, let's say, deep state apparatus surrounding that event. And also, you know, White Noise is a satirical novel. But but I think there was sort of some airborne toxic events in the United States.Keen: Yeah. I mean, he actually did write that in the book. I think about that. In a small town.Oyler: Exactly. But I believe White Noise is based on also a real incident. And DeLillo tends to work with actual news stories. Underworld is also sort of heavily researched and based on on on real, real events. So I think actually, maybe we we have to sort of admit that like as as as writers, as pundits, as journalists, as as whatever, it's in our best interest to say now is totally different. Right now, more than ever, everything's totally different. We're in a new paradigm. We're in a new era. This is especially bad. You know, you keep hearing this is the most important election of our lives. And we've been hearing that for every single election. And it's always been that kind of story. I can't really remember what your question was, but my my feeling about DeLillo is, like, amazing author. One of the best we have.Keen: Yeah, I know. I agree. And this idea of it being the most important election and of course, until the next one. This idea of an identity crisis. Lauren, what is an identity crisis? You noted that America is in a transitional stage. I mean, countries are always in transitional stages. They're always changing. Gramsci I think wrote that these kind of periods are a time for monsters. So we imagine the worst. What, to you, is an identity crisis, and why is the GOP going through it and not the Democrats? Might one argue that it's actually much healthier to face up to this crisis than to basically ignore it as the as the Democrats seem to be doing?Oyler: Yeah. Well, I think the Democrats, for all their faults, sort of dealt with this in the last two elections. And actually, you could say too the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was also a kind of identity crisis moment for them because the party didn't really want him, right? And Hillary's people, I believe, in 2008 were really critical of anyone who would go work for Obama, and it was it was actually like quite a big conflict. So you could say that basically the Democrats have been going through it as well. And now they've kind of they lost so humiliatingly in 2016 that they kind of had to do something about it, and they basically strong armed the left wing of the party in 2020, which for people of my generation, it was quite upsetting or like, galvanizing in some way, but you just don't really see so much...for someone who was really paying attention in 2020, the dissent against Kamala Harris is so much less than the dissent against Joe Biden in 2020. Does that sound right to you?Keen: Yeah, but I'm not sure you...I mean, if America is indeed in what you call this transitional stage where things the nature of the country, perhaps what we might think of as its kind of operating system is changing so dramatically. The Republicans are trying to face up to it and perhaps making fools of themselves, but at least they're addressing it. Why? Why the Republicans? Why the Democrats? So maybe America really isn't...I mean, this idea of a transitional stage is always true. So it's no more transitional in 2024 than it was in 2020 or 1920.Oyler: Yeah. Well, I think the Democrats have proven themselves to be quite denialists, right? Like they're very centrist. So the radical wing of the Republican Party. You could argue that J.D. Vance is part of part of the radical wing of the Republican Party. So I just think that the the Democrats are risk averse. They're very risk averse. And the things that they want are a return to normalcy when Republicans want like a radical reshaping of the government and society. They want...I went to some Moms for Liberty event where, you know, they weren't talking about this on the convention floor, but the Republicans give hearing to people who want to abolish the Department of Education. I can't remember what Trump's specific view on that is, but that's an incredibly radical proposal.Keen: I mean, Michael Lewis wrote a whole book on that: The Fifth Risk.Oyler: Yeah. But, it's not inconceivable that they would do that.Keen: Well, they did it. I mean, they did it in in 2016. I don't know if you're with the Department of Education, but some of these departments, they essentially shut down or appointed people with so hostile to the bureaucratic state that they by definition were going to ruin it.Oyler: Yeah. And then there was the the acronym R.A.G.E, Retire All Government Employees, and this kind of stuff. So but my point is that they you know, they see themselves as a revolution--the Republicans see themselves as a revolutionary party, and the Democrats are emphatically not. They're defining themselves against Republicans. So they're like, of course we're not America is not in an identity crisis. We just need to, like, get back to normal. But to go back to the phrase identity crisis, I think, too, is a reference also to J.D. Vance, whose whole career is, I argue, based on a sort of perversion of liberal identity politics, or an appeal to a kind of liberal identity politics. And the Republican Party's use of him or his use of them, is also based on this kind of Appalachian identity he has has created for himself in the media.Keen: Lauren, whatever happens today, the country's still profoundly divided. One side's going to win, one side is going to lose, but not by much. Lots of people have written about America in a process of divorce. You've presented the Democrats as denialists and the Republicans as so aggressively trying to figure themselves out in a slightly absurd way. Is this like a kind of traditional divorce where one partner denies there's any problems and the other exaggerates them? I don't know what the outcome of that kind of divorce usually is.Oyler: I don't know. Are you divorced?Keen: Yeah, but I'm not a denialist.Oyler: So you're so you're like--Keen: I mean, I was divorced.Oyler: What?Keen: I mean, I was. So...I've married and divorced.Oyler: Okay. But you have been through that. You've experienced--Keen: Yeah, I've done a divorce. Have you?Oyler: No. Never been married.Keen: But you've written about maybe not marriage, but you've written about...split ups, shall we say? I mean, you book Fake Accounts, which was a big hit, is about individuals and how they relate to one another. Is this like, maybe not a divorce, but a breakup in a in a weird kind of way, which, you know, you can't really breakup because you can't split the country in two?Oyler: Well, I don't think so, because I think it's probably...the thing about a romantic relationship is generally you are choosing in some way at least, to be in it and you're sort of declaring your your desire to be in it at some point in time. So if you're breaking it up, you're kind of it's seen as a failure, right? Whereas if you're an American citizen and you were just born in the country, you can't really control where you were born and you can't really, you know, there are only so many things you can do about that, and about your stake in the American political system and whether it breaks out. But are you asking for going is if this sort of south is going to secede or something like that--Keen: No, I'm saying, does this all tie into perhaps our therapeutic culture? I mean, is it coincidental that the kind of language that's being used both by the participants and observers like yourself is the same kind of language used by therapists, people addressing marriage breakups, relationship breakups, denialism, risk aversity, revenge plots, all this sort of thing?Oyler: Well, I think all the political parties are just made up of individual people, and as an individual person, the metaphors that we have at hand are our personal interpersonal metaphors. But I believe I'm a little rusty on this, but I believe Civilization and Its Discontents by Freud makes a similar kind of argument, right? Which is that there's a interpersonal metaphor that can be expanded to encompass the society. And you can read society psychoanalytically. I'm not a Freudian or even pro psychoanalysis per say, but it's not like it's actually not a new tendency that we we want to speak in these terms, especially in politics, which is different from government, right? Like in politics, all of the rhetoric, all of the language that politicians use and that they construct in order to make their case is incredibly personal and incredibly designed to incite emotion. That may remind you of things that happen in in private life, say. But I mean, are we getting a divorce? Like, we can't get a divorce. The Democrats or Republicans can't get a divorce. Maybe they need to grow up rather rather than split up.Keen: Finally, Lauren, I think your latest collection of essays is, No Judgment, I'm being critical...one of your strengths as a writer, thinker, or broadcaster, is your distance. I saw you had two interviews recently, one with GQ that says you don't take your work too seriously and then one with Vanity Fair, which suggests you care a lot. I wonder, and that's probably true of most of us, that we both hopefully don't take ourselves too seriously, but we also, in our own way, care a lot. Is this something that we should care about? I mean, so much hysteria. You noted earlier, every election is the most important election in American history. 2028 will no doubt be the same. You write without judgment, I think, that the piece also is written, in a sense, without judgment. But are you concerned with America? I mean, is this something to really worry about, or is it just one more scene and in the surreal history of the United States of America?Oyler: Well, I think, of course, it's something to care about. The idea I don't really care about things is obviously not totally true. But I think you can't care about the horse race aspect of of politics and you can't...the constant catastrophizing in the media hasn't worked. It's not accurate and it doesn't work. But of course it would be...I would prefer Donald Trump not win. Like, that will have many effects on even the country where I live, which is Germany. But to that point, I don't live in the United States and I don't live in the United States kind of for political reasons. And, of course, it shouldn't be a horrible catastrophe there the way that it is. Should care about it? Yeah. I think that if people don't care about it, or especially if young people don't care about it, it is a sense of that nothing that you do really matters, and like throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks politically. And that moment where everyone thought that they could do sort of political activism on social media has thankfully gone away. But there's been nothing to replace it to produce the kind of political subject for young people. So, I don't you know, I don't know what to do.Keen: Yeah,  it's interesting. I mean, I want to end this now because you've been very generous with your time. But I think your point, which hasn't really been made before...2024 is the first post-Internet election. Before, everyone was always obsessed with the Internet, always talking about how important it is. And now, you just don't read much about it. It's either it's the electric system, so it's just sort of ingrained into the system, or we've gone beyond the Internet, God knows where. But the Internet doesn't really feature in the discussion anymore.Oyler: No, I think that that's true. And I think that that's good because people are sort of accepting that it's a part of life now. I think the reason we focused on it so much in the previous two decades was because it felt like things were really radically changing. And maybe this sense that I have that we're transitioning into a new era and we don't really know what is the important thing to focus on is because it was so clear, I think, for many people that things were changing in a particular way with social media and social media was having these kind of drastic facts. And some people were in denial about that, and they would say, social media does matter. It's not real. Now, you can't really say that. But I think I noticed just before we got on the call that there was a New Yorker news, a breaking news story that The New Yorker published that that Russia was sort of inserting like kind of really bizarre election interference propaganda that was so bad. And it's not even going to be a big news story, right? Whereas that was such a huge news story in 2016 and 2020. And now we just sort of accept, yes, the foreign governments are going to attempt to use the Internet to interfere in our elections and we will almost certainly do the same. So, to relate this back to your question, should we all care? I think it's good to be realistic about these things, but it's hard to know where to put the emphasis at this point.Keen: Well, Lauren, Lauren Oyler, the author of Revenge--Revenge Plot, Not Revenge Post.Oyler: I thought you were going to say "romantic movie," which is cool.Keen: You've given me the title of this piece. 2024 is the first post-Internet election. I think that's very profound of you. Thank you so much, Lauren. And I hope I hope you're happy, because I think you and I probably agree on the kind of outcome of the election. But it's not the end of the plot, the revenge plot, whatever other kind of plot you want. We have to get you back on the show, Lauren, once the fog has cleared and we have a better idea of America post-2024. Thank you so much. And keep well and safe in Berlin. Really, I really appreciate it.Oyler: Thanks. Have a good night. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

01:00 If early vote numbers hold up, we'll know Trump has won by election day, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VXg7dCV71g 09:00 Politico Kamala cheerleader Jonathan Martin: The Clock Is Ticking on Kamala Harris, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/10/22/kamala-harris-reassure-voters-liberal-00184879 30:20 What if Senile Joe Biden was the better candidate all along? 38:20 Hacks on Tap praise the best Trump ad & critique Kamala, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hacks-on-tap/id1467297559 46:00 TRUMP Is Headed For A BLOWOUT Victory, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJuP9m78X6w 58:00 Republicans behave like they're winning, Democrats are behaving like they are losing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vXVB1AIims 1:00:00 Ezra Klein: What's Wrong With Donald Trump?, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/opinion/donald-trump-ezra-klein-podcast.html 1:11:00 Elliott Blatt and Kip join the show to discuss schadenfreude 1:17:00 Luke & Elliott despise comic books 1:42:00 The Fifth Risk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Risk 1:45:00 The Premonition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Premonition_(book) 1:46:00 Why are Luke & Elliott bachelors? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143746

We're joined by Greg Jordan-Detamore (https://www.gregjd.com/) to talk about digital services in operations, how applying civic tech practices happen where resources are constrained, and overcoming differing language choices. Resources and Shoutouts: - Greg's substack (https://civicinsighter.com/) - Recoding America (book) (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61796680-recoding-america) - The Fifth Risk (book) (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46266188-the-fifth-risk?ref=nav_sb_ss_1_14) - The Mindset Mentor (podcast) (https://robdial.com/podcast/) - Slow Boring (blog) (https://www.slowboring.com/)

This week's bonus episode, for our subscribers at the Truth-tell level and higher on Patreon, features our audience Q&A at the live taping with Tristan Snell, a former New York state prosecutor who won the Trump University case, and author of the new book Taking Down Trump. Our discussion includes exposing Jeffery Epstein's full network, how Trump back in the White House would impact our listeners in Canada, whether it's time to launch an underground resistance, ways to put pressure on Merrick Garland, and more!  Join the conversation with a community of listeners at Patreon.com/Gaslit and get bonus shows, all episodes ad free, submit questions to our regular Q&As, get exclusive invites to live events, and more.  Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!  An urgent request: the Senate passed aid to Ukraine. To put pressure on MAGA, contact your reps in the House with this easy-to-use site made by a Gaslit Nation listener:  helpukrainewin.com. Stay tuned as Gaslit Nation & Friends name and shame members of the Kremlin Kaucus, their staff, and their largest donors. We can't wait until November – we must stop MAGA now!   Show Notes: The Cases Against Trump: A Guide Fraud. Hush money. Election subversion. Mar-a-Lago documents. One place to keep track of the presidential candidate's legal troubles. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/donald-trump-legal-cases-charges/675531/ Taking Down Trump: 12 Rules for Prosecuting Donald Trump by Someone Who Did It Successfully by Tristan Snell https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/756546/taking-down-trump-by-tristan-snell/ Merrick Garland Must Go https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/merrick-garland-must-go/ Trump gets access to sealed documents on witness threats in Mar-a-Lago case Prosecutors turn over exhibit on threats made against potential witness to Trump's lawyers following judge's order, sources say https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/trump-mar-a-lago-case-witness-threats-sealed-exhibit The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Fifth-Risk/ Be sure to check out helpukrainewin.com, made by a Gaslit Nation listener!

“Don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.” Those are the haunting words of Roy Cohn, Trump's former longtime mentor and Henry Kissinger's current roommate in hell. Take Trump's classified Mar-a-Lago case. According to this week's guest, Tristan Snell, a former New York state prosecutor who won the Trump University case, and author of the new book Taking Down Trump, Jack Smith's classified Mar-a-Lago charges are a slam dunk. Unfortunately, the judge is Republican Aileen Cannon–appointed by Trump, and it shows in her MAGA-like rulings endangering witnesses. As Cohn would say, mob rules, baby! In this special live taping of Gaslit Nation, we discuss how the sausage of elite criminal impunity gets made, what can be done to hold prosecutors accountable and end the revolving door of corruption between public service and powerhouse white collar crime law firms, and, just for fun, take a tour of the criminal cases against Trump and where things stand. Obviously, at Gaslit Nation, we know that real justice comes down to us, which is why this show started in the first place. Grassroots power is the most reliable power we have left, especially when the Attorney General is Merrick Garland.  This week's bonus episode, for our subscribers at the Truth-tell level and higher on Patreon, features our audience Q&A at the live taping, with a discussion that includes exposing Jeffery Epstein's full network, how Trump back in the White House would impact our listeners in Canada, whether it's time to launch an underground resistance, and more! Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!  An urgent request: the Senate passed aid to Ukraine. To put pressure on MAGA, contact your reps in the House with this easy-to-use site made by a Gaslit Nation listener:  helpukrainewin.com. Stay tuned as Gaslit Nation & Friends name and shame members of the Kremlin Kaucus, their staff, and their largest donors. We can't wait until November – we must stop MAGA now!   Show Notes: The Cases Against Trump: A Guide Fraud. Hush money. Election subversion. Mar-a-Lago documents. One place to keep track of the presidential candidate's legal troubles. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/donald-trump-legal-cases-charges/675531/ Taking Down Trump: 12 Rules for Prosecuting Donald Trump by Someone Who Did It Successfully by Tristan Snell https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/756546/taking-down-trump-by-tristan-snell/ Trump gets access to sealed documents on witness threats in Mar-a-Lago case Prosecutors turn over exhibit on threats made against potential witness to Trump's lawyers following judge's order, sources say https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/trump-mar-a-lago-case-witness-threats-sealed-exhibit The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Fifth-Risk/ Be sure to check out helpukrainewin.com, made by a Gaslit Nation listener!

Author Michael Lewis joins Jen Taub today to talk about Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon, his new book that focuses on Sam Bankman-Fried, the crypto-wunderkind who is now on trial on federal criminal charges including wire fraud, securities fraud, commodities fraud, and money laundering.  Though Michael needs no introduction, here's one anyway. You know Michael from his numerous bestselling works of narrative nonfiction. You may in fact be someone like John Williams of the New York Times book review who wrote: “I would read an 800-page history of the stapler if he wrote it.”  I'm certain that I would as well, and not just because my preliminary research of the stapler shows that there is some controversy as to its origins. But, I digress. Michael Lewis may be best known for his follow-the-money books. These include his debut work  Liar's Poker about binge-eating bond traders on Wall Street in the 1980s, as well as The Big Short published in 2010, about a scrappy selection of investors who saw that the toxic-mortgage-linked securities bubble was about to burst and made billions on their related trades. Several of Michael's books have been made into feature films including the Big Short, directed by Adam McKay; Moneyball, and The Blind Side. Beyond his story-telling excellence, what makes Michael's work so compellihg are the unexpected discoveries about the fragility of our government infrastructure such as with the Fifth Risk and his ability to make us think in a more nuanced way about high-profile topics, including his already controversial take on SBF. Jen and Michael Lewis talk about indicted crypto-wunderkind Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF).  In their discussion they contemplated whether SBF ran his businesses like an absent-minded parent setting up an Easter Egg hunt without making note of how many and where the eggs were. As an alternative, he might have deliberately siphoned off customer and investor assets and hide them in accounts to use later for himself or his charitable causes.  Let's dive in, Contact Booked Up: You can email Jen & the Booked Up team at: BOOKEDUP@POLITICON.COM or by writing to:  BOOKED UP  P.O. BOX 147 NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 Get More from Michael Lewis  Website | Author of GOING INFINITE  and Many more books! Get More from Jen Taub: Twitter| Money & Gossip  Substack | Author of BIG DIRTY MONEY 

Gordon and Marc from the Darts & Letters podcast join me to discuss the 2004 National Film Board documentary Discordia, chronicling a student uprising against Benjamin Netanyahu speaking at Concordia and its aftermath. This episode connects to their ongoing series revisiting the events portrayed in the film with some of its subjects and others, which you can listen to here. ReComradations:Evan: action figure youtubersGordon: [1] Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk [2] Ezra Klein, Why We're PolarizedMarc: Ursula K. LeGuin, The DispossedRate + review the show on the podcatcher of your choice!Join the Kino Lefter DiscordJoin the Kino Lefter Facebook group "Kino Lefter VIP Cinema Experience"Get access to Primo Lefter, our weekly bonus show on our Patreon for just $3 per month. 

From GPS systems, to weather forecasts, to the food we consume, the U.S. government plays a role in virtually every facet of our lives. What happens behind the scenes and how do these background actions impact our lives, good and bad? Seeking the answers to those questions is the project of “The G Word,” a Netflix miniseries executive produced by former President Barack Obama and hosted by Adam Conover. Loosely based off of “The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy” by Michael Lewis, the six-part documentary explores the triumphs and failures of the government and how we might be able to change it. Conover joins WITHpod to discuss his creative process, maintaining editorial independence while working with Obama, his experiences getting rarely granted insider access of federal agencies and more.

In this Book Case, Dan and Scott review two recent books about the pandemic. Each offers a different, scientifically-based take on the successes and failures of pandemic policy. Special focus is placed on addressing the impact of treating the last two years as a virus rather than human-factors problem.The books:1. Pandemia by Alex Berenson (https://amzn.to/3HVQGrA)2. The Premonition by Michael Lewis (https://amzn.to/3bzcsVK)3. The Fifth Risk (https://amzn.to/3NpG7hq) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this special bonus, we're going to hear an episode of the podcast "Factually! with Adam Conover" as Adam talks about his new Netflix series, “The G Word.” Love it or hate it, the government plays a huge role in our lives. Adam explores its triumphs, failures and how we might be able to change it.  In this podcast, The Fifth Risk author Michael Lewis turns the tables on Adam, interviewing him about how made the show.

Adam's new series The G Word is out this Thursday on Netflix! To commemorate the premiere, this week The Fifth Risk author Michael Lewis turns the tables on Adam, interviewing him about how made the show. In the second half, they explore Michael's own reporting on how the CDC bungled COVID-19, and how Michael goes about writing his best-selling works of journalism. You can purchase The Fifth Risk at http://factuallypod.com/books, and watch The G Word on Netflix starting May 19th!

Next month Michael Lewis will join us in-person in London for a live, on-stage event exploring his life and work from Liar's Poker through to the present day. In anticipation, this episode of the podcast revisits his last appearance on the How To Academy stage, in conversation with the Guardian's Owen Jones. Together they explore the corrosion of the federal government under the Trump administration - the subject of Michael's book The Fifth Risk. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bloomberg Radio host Barry Ritholtz speaks with author Michael Lewis, whose books include “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt,” “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game,” “Liar's Poker” and “The Fifth Risk.” He is also a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and hosts the podcast “Against the Rules.” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode begins the close reading of Chapter 3. Jonathan sets up the discussion of the first scene with a reflection on conspiracy theories. They cite Ross Douthat's March 2, 2021, column "A Better Way to Think About Conspiracy Theories" published in The New York Times. Jonathan then explains Orren Boyle's motivations at the start of the conspiratorial meeting in this scene. Boyle's backstory activates tropes about wasteful government spending that plays favorites. On the topic of government criticism, Jonathan cites the book, The Fifth Risk, by Michael Lewis. Jonathan also mentions the Solyndra scandal and here is the Department of Energy's review of the context of the situation. This story by NPR in 2014 explains the profitability of the larger Department of Energy program. However, this story by Fox News in 2019 recaps the Solyndra episode and omits the contextual information about the program's profitability in order to increase skepticism about programs associated with the Green New Deal. My five themes to explore in this podcast's close read of Atlas Shrugged are:What is human nature?Straw-man arguments and their impact on the world Ayn Rand creates. Dagny Taggart as a true hero.How empathy can be de-legitimized.What is Capitalism and what is wrong with it? Questions or comments? Email me at: socialistreads@gmail.comLearn more about Jonathan Seyfried at their website, https://jonathanseyfried.artIf you'd like to support my creative work, please visit my Patreon page.The intro/outro music was composed by John Sib.The podcast theme image was created by Karina Bialys.Support the Show.

Sean Illing talks with writer Michael Lewis about why it is that Americans are so good at producing knowledge, but so bad at identifying and utilizing that knowledge — the central issue of the new season of his podcast "Against the Rules." They discuss who counts as an expert, some fundamental impediments to disseminating knowledge, and whether or not there is a possible future where Americans regain their trust in experts, institutions, and each other. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), Interviews Writer, Vox Guest: Michael Lewis, author References:  Against the Rules with Michael Lewis podcast (Pushkin) The Premonition: A Pandemic Story by Michael Lewis (W.W. Norton; 2021 - paperback; 2022) The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis (W.W. Norton; 2018) The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium by Martin Gurri (Stripe; 2014) Enjoyed this episode? Rate Vox Conversations ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of Vox Conversations by subscribing in your favorite podcast app. Support Vox Conversations by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Editor: Amy Drozdowska Engineer: Paul Robert Mounsey Deputy Editorial Director, Vox Talk: Amber Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Russillo shares his thoughts on the beauty of the NCAA tournament and the national champion Kansas Jayhawks (0:29) before talking with Jackie MacMullan about her new narrative podcast, ‘Icons Club,' the friendship and rivalry between Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, the 2022 Celtics' turnaround, LeBron James's future after a crushing Lakers season, and more (12:13). Then Ryen talks with author and journalist Michael Lewis about some of his books, including ‘The Premonition,' ‘The Fifth Risk,' ‘Losers: The Road to Everyplace but the White House,' ‘Moneyball: The Art of Winning,' and more (43:34). Finally Ryen answers some listener-submitted Life Advice questions (1:17:12). Host: Ryen Russillo Guests: Jackie MacMullan and Michael Lewis Producers: Kyle Crichton and Steve Ceruti Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Pick Up & Deliver 418: The Fifth Risk - Brendan uses the idea of the "fifth risk" from Michael Lewis' book of the same name to think about how games surprise us with things we should be watching for but aren't. Join us, won't you?

Pick Up & Deliver 418: The Fifth Risk - Brendan uses the idea of the "fifth risk" from Michael Lewis' book of the same name to think about how games surprise us with things we should be watching for but aren't. Join us, won't you?

Pick Up & Deliver 418: The Fifth Risk - Brendan uses the idea of the "fifth risk" from Michael Lewis' book of the same name to think about how games surprise us with things we should be watching for but aren't. Join us, won't you?

(Recorded April 9, 2020) This Week: The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis.

(Recorded April 9, 2020) This Week: The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis.

I'm back with another installment of What Liz Has Been Reading Lately, featuring Thomas King's excellent book, The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America, and Michael Lewis's latest book, The Premonition. Both are definitely recommended!To find out more about Thomas King, check out this profile from CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/books/thomas-king-is-hopeful-that-his-writing-has-changed-the-world-but-he-s-still-not-sure-1.5795015And be sure to look up the book I discuss here: https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-inconvenient-indianMichael Lewis is notoriously social media averse, but you can learn more about him and his work at his web site: http://michaellewiswrites.com/#topBoth books he's written in the last five years are among my top nonfiction favorites of all time! They make it easy to understand how, when, and why government is an important part of our overall health and progress as a country. The Fifth Risk: https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780393357455The Premonition: https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780393881554Learn more about the characters I mention:Carter Mecher: https://www.phc.health/team-member/carter-mecher-mdCharity Dean: https://www.phc.health/team-member/charity-dean-md-mph-tm-2Joe DeRisi: https://profiles.ucsf.edu/joe.derisiDeRisi's Lab: http://derisilab.ucsf.edu/Either would make a great Christmas gift! And while you're at it, why not shop independent bookstores! You can do so using those links or support local bookstores at https://bookshop.org/.Next week, I'll be talking about an excellent book I'm currently about halfway through: Sorry I'm Late, I Didn't Want to Come, all about introverting, by Jessica Pan. And maybe also some more from Caste, Teaching Machines, and/or Tarana Burke's searing memoir, Unbound, all of which I'm in the middle of right now!Follow me on Goodreads at https://goodreads.com/liznorell to see what I'm reading and on Twitter at https://twitter.com/liznorell to see what I'm thinking.

“People should not underestimate Donald Trump's abilities as a retail politician", says my guest today, fellow Brit-American Fiona Hill. "He knows how to connect with people, he knows how to get people riled up, he knows how to pit people against each other so that they can't push back against what he's doing”. Fiona is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019. In November 2019, she testified in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. In very personal terms, we discuss the class system and social mobility in the UK, and her childhood in the North East of England, which lost its economic heart as coal mining collapsed; as well as her experience in the Soviet Union and Russia, American academia, and the White House. Fiona compares and contrasts the authoritarian style of Trump and Putin (with some discussion of Erdogan too); the need for more aggressive social and economic policy for places devastated by the shift away from industry; and the real and present danger posed to so many nations by political populism. We conclude, as her book does, with a discussion of what we can do as individuals and our own communities to build a stronger infrastructure of opportunity.  Fiona Hill Fiona Hill is a senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution. She is a foreign policy expert on Russian and European affairs, and has served under three presidents: Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush. Hill is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has held numerous positions directing research at Harvard University, where she obtained her PhD in History.  More Hill Hill's book, There Is Nothing for You Here: Finding Opportunity in the 21st Century, is an exceptionally honest tale of dwindling opportunity in the UK and the US.  You can read more of her work at Brookings, the New York Times, Foreign Affairs, and Politico Her testimony at Trump's first impeachment trial is also worth watching (starting at 3:08:43)    Also Mentioned  I mentioned Joseph Fishkin's book, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity, which if you haven't read by now, you really should!  Fiona mentioned The Fifth Risk, written by Michael Lewis and Angrynomics co-authored by Mark Blythe.  I quoted G.A. Cohen, “social justice isn't just found in structures and institutions, it's found in the thick of everyday life,” in his book If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? Fiona also mentioned the group Wider Circle and Dress for Success The Dialogues Team  Creator: Richard Reeves Research: Ashleigh Maciolek Artwork: George Vaughan Thomas Tech Support: Cameron Hauver-Reeves Music: "Remember" by Bencoolen (thanks for the permission, guys!)  

I'm going to start, as I do with all the authors that we have on this podcast, by asking you, Gillian, the audience we're aiming at here is people who are interested in how we can do a better job at improving the state of the world and who are interested in public service in some way. And the question to you is, in a sentence, why should people, our audience, read your book?Gillian Tett (GT): In a sentence, most of the problems in policy making and corporate life, and as general citizens, stem from the fact that we have tunnel vision. We can't see the consequences of what we're doing or the context. And I believe that cultural anthropology is one discipline that can really help you overcome tunnel vision, and get lateral vision, a wider view of how our actions impact the world.MB: Now, you've written a fantastically wide-ranging book. I mean, it starts with you as a young student in Tajikistan, studying marriage rituals under a communist state in a Central Asian country. But you go across everything from the Cambridge Analytica scandal and trying to make sense of Trump, the financial crisis back in 2008, the emergence of ESG [Environmental, Social, and Governance] and impact investing, more recently, and sort of interesting issues in car manufacturing and consumption habits and all sorts of things. But can you start us off with what drew you to anthropology in the first place, and how you found yourself in Tajikistan and why that actually led you into journalism, which is where you have spent your career?GT: Well, I got into anthropology, like many things in life, by accident. I wanted to have adventure and travel the world, and I was curious about the wider world, which is something that I hope we teach all of our kids to be. And so, I studied anthropology as an undergraduate, then went to do a Ph.D. in it, and ended up in a place called Soviet Tajikistan, just north of Afghanistan, where I was studying marriage rituals as a way to look at the clash between Islam and communism. And just at the end of my research, the Soviet Union broke up. There was a very brutal war where I'd been living. So, I went to journalism partly because I was frustrated that no one was paying attention, and I wanted to draw attention to it for human rights reasons. But I then quickly realized, actually, the business of telling people about other people can be, in some ways, quite similar to anthropology, but also a way to try and drive some change in the wider world as well.MB: So, it's a very natural follow up to your previous book, The Silo Effect, where you talk about the problem that people lock themselves into siloed thinking and here you talk a lot about lateral vision, this ability to sort of see things from multiple perspectives, but also to see yourself as others might see you. You know, if there's a single message about anyone going into public policy work or policymaking, what is it that anthropology teaches them?GT: I think this single message can be presented in two ways. One, is to think about culture. And that kind of sounds obvious because we all know we're affected by our culture. But defining culture is a bit like chasing soap in the bath. It's kind of everywhere, but nowhere. And we know it affects us, but we don't actually have many ways to think about how to reflect on that. And what I offer in the book is really an argument that we all need to take a three-step process. Periodically, immerse ourselves in the lives of others or people who seem different from us. And that being different can be at the end of the street, in a different department, or the other side of the world. And to do that to get empathy not just for others and realize that not everyone thinks like us, but also then to fit the lens and look back at ourselves and see what we're missing. And see above all else, the kind of social silences, the parts of our world that we tend to ignore, because they seem boring or dull or irrelevant or just too obvious to talk about. So, in many ways, the second way, I think I'd frame it is to say that anthropology gives you lateral vision in a world of tunnel vision. It enables you to see the context, the cultural context, beyond our models, or balance sheets, or simple policy programs. And when you wrap those different points together, what anthropology really gives you is an awareness that if you are engaged in public policy, you need to look at the world in a connected way, with empathy, both for others and a sense of empathy for understanding all the shortcomings in your own approach.MB: You have a very interesting chapter on contagion where you start with the Ebola crisis in Africa. And actually, with a character, Chris Whitty, who went on to be quite a central figure in the British response to this current pandemic that we're going through. You also cite Paul Farmer [co-founder of Partners in Health] in this in this context. At various points, you note that a lot of the international aid failures around Ebola were due to not thinking through and understanding the culture of people on the ground. But then you flip it, I think very nicely, and talk about how we didn't necessarily do a good job of understanding our own culture when we were pushing many of the public health messages that needed to be communicated as we responded to the crisis. In fact, Chris Whitty himself didn't necessarily do a brilliant job in the U.K. I mean, I'm wondering, as you reflect now, on how we've responded to the pandemic, what should we if we brought an “Anthro-Vision” approach to it, should we have done differently?GT: Well, I think, that we could have done two things differently. The first is to actually be curious about people who seem different from us and try and learn lessons from how they've handled pandemics in the past. This is a fundamental point in my book, that actually it pays to embrace strange, not run away or deride it. And to ask questions and be curious about how other people live. If we'd had that mentality at the beginning of COVID-19, it could and should have prompted policymakers to pay more attention to Wuhan. Look at the experience of SARS. Look at what happened with Ebola in West Africa. Not just assume it was a bunch of strange, weird people in a faraway place that had nothing to do with us. Because the reality is that the pandemic has shown us the world is interconnected and prone to contagion at all times and contagions come from people who we don't necessarily understand. And if nothing else, we need to try and understand that to, you know, protect ourselves. I happen to think there's a moral reason why we ought to try and understand each other. But if you want to just play to fear and greed, that's it. But separately, if we had actually paid more attention to lessons from other countries at the beginning of COVID, we might have learned some really good lessons and tips. Like the efficacy of masks, that was well-known by anthropologists from the SARS epidemic in Asia. And what they'd learned was actually the way a mask helps in an epidemic is not just through the physical barrier of germs, but also through the simple act of putting on a mask each day as a psychological prompt to remind you to change behavior, or the fact that masks can be a signaling device culturally to show adherence to a wider group of norms, and a desire to uphold civic responsibility. And that really matters and it could and should have been imported into the West a lot earlier. But the flip side is, of course, that thinking about how other countries handled an epidemic enables you to then look back at yourself, too, and say, “well are we making the right decisions or not?” So again, a tiny example is that in the U.K., there was a tremendous focus on top-down messaging and orders and coercion in terms of trying to change behavior during the COVID-19 lockdown. The messaging was very often conflicting and changeable. And the U.K. didn't use its existing excellent network of health centers, which were bottom-up local areas, which they should have done. If they'd looked at the experience or something like Ebola or even Asia with SARS and others, they would have seen what a mistake that was. And they would have actually asked themselves, you know, “why are we in the U.K. not using our wonderful local network of healthcare providers to try and battle the pandemic, you know, get messages about lockdown across in the way that people feel empowered, and want to relate to?” You know, “what can we do better?”MB: And I mean, this theme of top down versus bottom up is another theme that comes throughout the book. And particularly in a chapter that you start in Davos with the gathering of the World Economic Forum (WEF), where we've both been there many times. And it's hard to imagine a more top-down orientation than the global elite gathered in Davos. What do you feel if Klaus Schwab [founder of the World Economic Forum] was to say, “Gillian, tell me how I should change WEF so that we can get Anthro-Vision at WEF?” What would you say to him?GT: I would say two or three things. Firstly, look at the Davos tribe with an anthropological lens and see all the elitism, see the networking, and see above all else, how it often encourages people to ignore other people's points of view. You know, you need to probably get people who are not part of the Davos elite into the room much more effectively and get their views actually embedded into the conversation. Recognize that not everything can be solved through top-down analysis in the form of big datasets, economic models, corporate balance sheets, political polls. Those can be very useful, but you need to supplement top-down models and intellectual tools with some bottom-up analysis that looks at qualitative, not just quantitative metrics. I'm not saying that, you know, anthropology has all the answers, but I'm saying it's a really useful way to conduct checks and balances to provide other perspectives into a conversation. Or to use another metaphor, you know, most of the tools we use today to look at the world, our bird's eye views, those taken from 30,000 feet. Anthropology basically cherishes a worm's eye view, a bottom-up view. And that can be incredibly important.MB: You touch on that issue a lot. One of the questions I would have is why is it that we're so dismissive? I mean, it seems by now, we should be recognizing that we operate in silos. I mean, you wrote a book about this many years ago, it seems to be a well-observed effect. And yet, you actually quote this one point, a famous author pointed out that getting people to understand when their job depends on not understanding it is actually very hard. Is that what's going on, that our policymakers, our leaders are locked into this? They have too many incentives to ignore the general view, so they certainly don't go down to the worm's eye view?GT: I think the reality is that someone in the book asks "why, dude, don't more companies hire anthropologists” or look at themselves, not other people? One reason is that what anthropologists say often make people uncomfortable. Because if you're part of the elite, if you are in a position of power, you tend to be there not just by controlling economic capital by making money, or political capital, net worth of power. You shape cultural capital in the sense that you have a belief system, which often reaffirms the social order and makes it seem natural, that elites are in charge. And that's very comforting. But the reality is that, you know, every society has creation myths and cultural frameworks, which might prop up the position of the elite, but are often full of contradictions and leave people prone to tunnel vision. And that's why we need to challenge them. To give you a couple of tangible examples, before 2008, financiers working in the field of financial innovation derivatives had this wonderful creation myth about how innovation was going to make the financial system safer, because they were going to create perfectly liquid markets, where risk was dispersed. And that was riddled with contradictions when you dug into it. But the people who were peddling it couldn't see it, because they were such a tribe set apart, such a tunnel, they had so little challenge. So, the value of anthropology to come in and say, "well, this is what you're not looking at". It offers checks and balances above all else.MB: You have this very interesting discussion of Trump and how the media and many people in the global elite missed what it was that gave him a connection to so many voters and particularly you focus on this word "bigly" that he used and how the elite was sneering at this interesting linguistic "cofefe", I guess you might call it. But what is it that we should now be thinking about the Trump tribe who, again, I think, in the elite, there was this feeling that January 6th and the storming of the Capitol would, you know, would somehow bring the Republican base to its senses, whereas the opposite seems to be the case? Are we failing again, to understand what's really going on with the Trump tribe?GT: What I write about in the book about the elite and Trump is really a sort of mea culpa on my part because when I heard the word bigly in one of the debates I laughed, too, instinctively. Laughter is always very revealing, because it reveals the social group boundaries, you know, you have to be in a group to get a joke. If you're not in a group, you don't get the joke. And laughter tends to reveal unresolved contradictions in our own cultural patterns, or ones we don't talk about. And what laughing about the word bigly really revealed was that the ingroup of journalists tended to assume and take for granted that to be in a position of power and have credibility, you had to have command of language. And in some ways, you know, having command of language and being educated, you know, has hitherto been one of the few accepted forms of snobbery in America. And the reality is that lots of people find that very irritating, and they resent it. But the fact that I was part of the in group that laughed, meant that I kind of was failing to see what a lot of Trump supporters and voters were actually seeing in Trump and applauding, which was that he spoke in a way that used not just so much words, more a kind of performance, ritualistic style of communication, that connected very deeply with a lot of his base. I write in the book that a lot of it was borrowed from the world of wrestling, in fact, in terms of how it tapped into emotions, and had stage mock fights and things like that, which was, again, a set of performative cultural messaging and signaling that was very familiar to Trump voters, but not elite journalists for the most part. So, I missed a lot of Trump's appeal because I didn't really get it on an emotional level, because of my own tribalism. I tried to counter that by listening to people in 2016. And that did in fact that help me see the likely victory of Donald Trump.MB: You were certainly one of those people who was, I mean, actually you're harsh on yourself in the book, because you say you missed the Brexit vote, but on both Brexit and Trump's victory, I heard you saying that you were quite concerned that would be the result before they happened. Do you feel now that there's this danger that we still haven't learned that lesson about Trump and his appeal to his tribe?GT: I think there's a danger even today, that we fail to see that what we're dealing with in America today is not just a political split, but an epistemological split. And that sound like a very big grandiose word or at leastMB: A bigly word, I guess.GT: A bigly word definitely. An epistemological split means, basically, a split in the system of knowledge, in how we communicate and actually reason. And anyone who has been trained for years in education, as I have been, tends to have a rational, logical one direct mindset in terms of evaluating knowledge, and to take things fairly literally and to try and pass them. And, you know, that's a very valid mindset. But it's not the only mindset out there. There's another type of mindset out there, which is much more about impressionistic, emotional, holistic reading of situations. And, you know, looking at performative signaling, and that's the mindset that Trump uses as much of the time. In the book, I talk about the difference between weird and non-weird cultures meaning “Western, educated, individualistic, rich, and democratic.” That's the use of man called Joseph Henrich, who is brilliant, who looked at these different modes of reasoning. And I think even today that when we talk about political splits, we need to recognize that there's a part of America that's responding to events like the January 6th events at Capitol Hill, not through one-dimensional, logical reasoning, passing, etc., that we value as journalists, but instead through much more emotional, impressionistic, performative, signaling patterns. I see the same truth in other areas as well, by the way. I mean, you can't hope to make sense of say, some of the mean cultures erupting in the financial markets, unless you recognize that there's performative signaling going on that can be very potent, but which can't be passed through any economic economist's model of rational expectations, or any kind of portfolio allocation approach to mind.MB: Now you talk at various points about the media as a tribe, and maybe a tribe that it's got its own narrative a little out of whack or doesn't look at itself through a lateral lens. I mean, what do you feel is the biggest danger that the media has at the moment, in terms of how it might go, you know, way off track in understanding how the world is going at the moment?MB: Well, I do look at the media, because I think we have to be honest as journalists, and if we're going to analyze other people, we have to analyze ourselves. And the real issue is, I do think we should realize how we're tribal how we're creatures of our own environment. And how, in many ways the sheer polarization in America and the attacks in the media have intensified the sense of tribalism. And that affects us in two ways. Firstly, in terms of how we define stories, and what stories we look at, and how we communicate them. And, you know, I think that in many ways, it's natural that we're tribal, everyone's tribal, it's part of human nature. But it has been exacerbated also by the competitive pressures afoot in journalism today, where essentially, there's a very crowded marketplace for information. So, there's a presumption that you have to shout loudly to get attention. There's a presumption that you have to try and get a really sticky audience, which tends to force people to take quite extremist views. Journalists are under tremendous time pressure. So, they tend to gravitate towards the areas of social noise, the things that are easy to see, and ignore the really important areas of social silence. And also journalists tend to have silos within their own news operations, which reflect a ton of silos in the outside world. You know, we have banking teams, and political teams and legal teams. Stories often fall between the cracks, and sometimes get caught, sometimes not. So, in an ideal world, you know, journalists would be given a lot more money, and the ability to go forth and roam and collide with the unexpected and look at social sciences. They'd be encouraged to try and communicate with audiences in ways that didn't just reaffirm existing prejudices. I mean, you can connect with where the audience's head is up front, as if you're playing dominoes. And match one half a domino to someone else's domino, but then you can take them somewhere else, with a second piece of a domino if you like. And in an ideal world, you'd have journalists who were able to, essentially, you know, get out of their own mental tunnels and explore different points of view. But that's hard to do with the media under such pressure. And when essentially, there's constant demand to create quick hits and returns in the form of stories that meet the normal pattern.MB: So, you're optimistic that journalism will change or are you quite fearful about it?GT: I hope journalism tries and changes. And one of the things that does make me more optimistic is a checks and balances are emerging. Partly because the sheer plurality of voices coming through, partly because we're seeing new models of journalism coming through, like investigative units funded by donations by ProPublica, in podcasts, and in other forms that are actually creating ways to have checks and balances. But I'm concerned about the degree to which it has become politicized and polarized. And above all else, I'm concerned that not enough journalists are flipping the lens and looking back at their own tribe and trying to work out how that is creating a sense of tunnel vision.MB: Now, one of the big trends that's been going on for the past few years has been to see business and finance as a way of making the world better in some ways, you know, through ESG and impact investing and so forth. And that's attracted a number of people who probably would have gone into traditional public service in government in the past, to think they can drive change, positive change through business and investing. And you founded Moral Money at the Financial Times. But in the book, you're quite candid, that initially, you used to roll your eyes at the letters ESG. And so, what caused you to change? And how substantial do you think this phenomenon is? Is it really going to deliver the goods or is it still more in the greenwashing/stakeholder washing category than real change?GT: Well, I initially used to call ESG, "eyeroll, sneer, and groan," because I thought it was basically about corporate BS. And that's the way the most journalists think. And so, I just missed it. I used to delete all the emails about ESG. And then I finally thought you know what, that's my view about what ESG is, as a journalist, who is paid to be cynical. I should at least try and listen to what the people's view is of the people who are trying to do ESG. And when I try to look at the world through their eyes, I realized that there was a bigger Zeitgeist shift going on, which was really to do with the fact that ESG had started out as a, you know, campaign to change the world in a really positive active way, which was very laudable, driven by, you know, nuns and Danish pension funds and people like that. But by 2016/2017, which is when I began to look at it, it was also being driven for the most part by a desire amongst companies and executives and finances to save themselves, and essentially engage in risk management, because people were increasingly realizing that if they ignored things like environmental risk or gender issues and sexual harassment, slavery in the supply chain, they could end up suffering reputational damage, regulatory controls, loss of employees, clients, customers, investors, etc. And you can be cynical and say, "Well, listen, that's just, you know, very hypocritical in the part of ESG it is just a way for companies to engage in self-defense at a time when radical transparency and changing societal norms, and it's all just for show.” Or you can say, “actually, it's pretty amazing that ESG has gone so mainstream, that companies feel they even need to talk about it or make the effort to do it.” And that, you know, revolutions succeed, not when a tiny, committed minority of activists are screaming, but when the silent majority thinks they need to go along with a change, because it's dangerous to resist it. And I think that's where we are with ESG right now. Does that mean there is a lot of greenwashing, woke washing, reputation washing? Yes, there is some. Does it mean that the rituals of ESG, to be anthropological, don't match up with the reality? Yes, quite often. But you know, anthropologists believe that rituals are interesting, because they show an idealized version of what people think the world should be like. And the very fact that people have a different idealized version today from what it was 30 years ago, I think is very interesting. And overall, what is striking is that, you know, as say, fossil fuel emissions become less acceptable, you're actually seeing that feed through to changes in the cost of capital for energy companies, and dashboards embracing renewables, and a change in actual corporate behavior, to a degree. I can't stress strongly enough you need government action too. You know, companies alone, ESG alone, are not going to fix problems. But if people are all rowing roughly in the same direction, and cultural norms are changing, it makes it easier to both force government action, and potentially to do business and financial action as well that's going to be in the right direction.MB: Now, I want to bring up an issue that you touch on at various points tangentially in the book, but not head on. So, I'm going to push you a bit. I'm very concerned at the moment about the quality of government. We could do with better people going into government and we could do with much more joined up government. It just seems to me the narrative around government is pretty horrible, and that most people that aren't in government are quite put off by it. There's not much attraction to it, except for people that have big egos or ambitions to be famous politicians or whatever. It's not an attractive narrative. Have you thought much about that with your “Anthro-Vision” lens on like, why it's got into that bad narrative and also what how we might encourage more people to see it positively?GT: I think you made a great point there, Matthew about the issue of government, because I was very struck, talking to Paul Volcker, the wonderful former Fed Chairman, who had gone into public service in the post-war years, when public service was revered, and spent many years working in public service and was very dismayed to see how attitudes towards public service changed as the 20th century wore on. So upset that when he finally left government, and, you know, had time on his hands, he created a center at the Harvard Kennedy School to try and champion the idea of good governance, and then found it almost impossible to get funding because it was so unpopular and unfashionable. And I think that's terribly dangerous. And I think we need good government. We need respect for good government and better organization. Michael Lewis's book, The Fifth Risk, showed that so clearly. What I think's interesting is that history shows that, you know, we go in pendulum swings in terms of Zeitgeists, and anthropology shows that in fact nothing is ever fixed in stone. Culture is like a river. It is constantly flowing and changing, and new streams are coming in. And I suspect we may, just may, be at a point when the pendulum is beginning to swing a tiny bit away from the idea that government is the source of all problems towards slightly more respect for government. I think the pandemic could end up being a bit of a turning point in attitudes, not just in the sense of public and private are working together, and also private and private, over things like the vaccine, which is laying down train tracks for the future. But also, I suspect that the idea of having a government mission looks a little less unfashionable than in the past.MB: If someone is thinking about going into government or a career in public service, is there a tip that you would have as to how they can use Anthro-Vision to sort of be a different sort of government leader, different sort of bureaucrat, civil servant?GT: In a nutshell, I'd say that a key tip from Anthro-Vision is to embrace a concept that at the heart of the American political system, which has checks and balances. What anthropology does is give you intellectual checks and balances. You embrace whatever field you are passionate about, be that medicine or economics or law, or whatever part of government you're working in. You do that job well, but you never forget to look around corners and think about context and think about the cultural patterns that you're working in and how it might make be giving you tunnel vision and make you blind to what you can't see. And you respect the fact that there are going to be cultural dynamics inside the office and outside the office. And I think that getting that wider vision of what you're doing is perhaps the most important thing of anyone who's working in public service today.MB: Well, that's a great note to end on. And as I say, this is a really interesting book. It's full of great stories and tremendous practical advice about how to learn some of the tips from anthropology, even if you aren't an anthropologist yourself. And I think you certainly succeed in making the case that we do all need to get some “Anthro-Vision”, so we can see the world differently. So, thank you. Gillian Tett and the book is highly recommended. GT: Thank you. Great to be on your show.  This transcript has been lightly edited for context and clarity. 

Today on the Take on Board podcast, Helga is speaking with Caitlin Siostrom about the risk oversight on not for profit and small organization boards and how to create meaningful risk appetite statements and policies that are fit for purpose, no matter your resources.Caitlin is on the board of Times Change Women's Employment Service and chair of the risk committee. Time Change is a women's run not-for-profit, providing employment opportunities for women in need.She is also a senior regulatory lawyer, who recently led ASIC's Corporate Governance taskforce workstream, looking at board oversight of risk in Australia's largest financial institutions. Caitlin recently moved to Canada and is currently a senior director at Royal Bank of Canada, where she leads the bank's Regulatory Compliance Management program.Contact Caitlin or find out more about her:https://www.linkedin.com/in/caitlin-siostrom-763b3685/Resources mentioned in this episode:The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis: https://www.bookdepository.com/Fifth-Risk-Michael-Lewis/9780141991429FOR MORE TAKE ON BOARD INFORMATION:Take on Board Breakfast with Brynn O'Brien : https://www.trybooking.com/BSRNNTake on Board Book Club: https://www.trybooking.com/BTFKNBoard Kickstarter: https://www.trybooking.com/BSJIBJoin the Take on Board community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/TakeOnBoard/Follow along on Twitter: @TakeOnBoardFor more information about Helga Svendsen: https://www.helgasvendsen.com.au/Interested in working with Helga? https://www.helgasvendsen.com.au/workwithmeContact Helga: helga@helgasvendsen.com.au

Cody Townsend and Jonathan Ellsworth talk about Cody's recent adventure in AK; surges in National Park visits; ski patrol unionization; UFOs … and more. TOPICS & TIMES:Cody's Alaska Update (2:47)When can you claim to have summited? (7:59)Will Gadd on the Ethos of Guiding (20:39)Indoor Ski Areas (25:52)Surge in National Parks visits (36:13)Unionization of Ski Patrol (49:20)Results of backcountry riders facing criminal charges (54:17)UFOs are real?? (56:06)Cody's Recommendations (1:04:20)Black Hawk Down, Mark Bowden (1:04:34)Hail Mary Project, Andy Weir (1:08:09)The Fifth Risk, Michael Lewis (1:08:54)The Wayfinders, Wade Davis (1:09:50)The Third Pole, Mark Synnott (1:11:04)The Invention of Nature, Andrea Wulf (1:12:57)The Last Dance, Martin Shoemaker (1:15:12)Jonathan's Recommendations (1:16:01)Bill Simmons & Adam Duritz of Counting Crows (1:16:13)Ultra, Michele Graglia (1:19:04)Fourth Fifths a Grizzly, Doug Chadwick (1:23:48) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Michael Lewis is the acclaimed author of books such as The Big Short, Moneyball and The Fifth Risk. In his brilliant new book The Premonition: A Pandemic Story, he exposes how factors such as US privatised health helped turn COVID-19 into a national catastrophe which claimed the lives of well over 600,000 Americans.Help us take on the right wing media here: https://patreon.com/owenjones84Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/the-owen-jones-podcast. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Hello! We’re incredibly excited to be talking to one of our favourite authors, Michael Lewis, about his new book, The Premonition: A Pandemic Story. He explores what went wrong in the US response to coronavirus through the lives of a number of people at the heart of pandemic planning. We chat to Michael about what he discovered, his approach to writing, and how he finds such compelling characters for his books.Listen to our conversation with Michael from last year about The Fifth Risk: https://pod.fo/e/13600 See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 2018, Michael Lewis published “The Fifth Risk,” which argued, in short, that the federal government was underprepared for a variety of disaster scenarios. Guess what his new book is about? Lewis visits the podcast this week to discuss “The Premonition,” which recounts the initial response to the coronavirus pandemic.“It wasn’t just Trump,” Lewis says. “Trump made everything worse. But there had ben changes in the American government, and changes in particular at the C.D.C., that made them less and less capable of actually controlling disease and more and more like a fine academic institution that came in after the battle and tried to assess what had happened; but not equipped for actual battlefield command. The book doesn’t get to the pandemic until Page 160. The back story tells you how the story is going to play out.”The historian Annette Gordon-Reed visits the podcast to talk about her new book, “On Juneteenth,” which combines history about slavery in Texas with more personal, essayistic writing about her own family and childhood.“This is a departure for me, but it is actually the kind of writing that I always thought that I would be doing when I was growing up, dreaming about being a writer,” Gordon-Reed says. “I’ve always been a great admirer of James Baldwin, and Gore Vidal’s essays I thought were wonderful, better than the novels, and that’s the kind of thing that I wanted to do. So it was sort of a dream come true for me to be able to take this form and talk about some things that were very important to me.”Also on this week’s episode, Tina Jordan looks back at Book Review history during this year of its 125th anniversary; Alexandra Alter has news from the publishing world; and Parul Sehgal and John Williams talk about the latest in literary criticism. Pamela Paul is the host.Here are the books discussed by the critics this week:“The Secret to Superhuman Strength” by Alison Bechdel“Jackpot” by Michael Mechanic

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Barry Ritholtz speaks with Michael Lewis, who is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. His books include “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt,” “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game,” “Liar’s Poker” and “The Fifth Risk.” He also has a podcast called “Against the Rules.” His published his latest book in May 2021: “The Premonition: A Pandemic Story.”

Michael Lewis takes the most left brain issue and gives it right brain impact. That's exactly what he does in one of Marianne's favorite books, The Fifth Risk. The book has been called “a love letter to federal workers” by the Washington Post. In this episode, Michael and Marianne explore why a presidential transition, or lack thereof, is so critically important. The book's major theme is that “a bungled transition becomes a bungled presidency,” a particularly important issue as Trump continues to withhold vital information from the incoming Biden administration.Marianne and Michael discuss the more shocking parts of the 2016/17 transition, and why its lessons are so important for us now and going forward. Following the interview, Marianne answers a question from a concerned citizen. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.transformarticles.com/subscribe

(Recorded April 9, 2020) This Week: The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis.

Yang Yi is a Chinese editor, a broadcaster, and one of the trailblazers in the new world of podcasting in China. He is the host of two podcasts, a culture-themed show called "Left-Right", and a show called "Go! LIVE" where he invites reporters in China to share their eperiences in journalism. And he is also co-founder of the "JustPod" company, which currently produces four original and three branded podcasts. Yi and I discuss his personal experiences of growing up with broadcast media in China, and he makes some great observations about China's media landscape from the 1990s to today. While our interview was recorded many weeks before the coronavirus outbreak, some of the things we discuss will resonate with anyone observing how the issue is being handled in the Chinese and Western media. Yang Yi's object: A radio of course. Yang Yi's favourite WeChat sticker: This esoteric one of Jiang Zemin. You may need to listen to the episode for more information about this one!(Add @oscar10877 on WeChat to join the Group and see the original sticker) Yang Yi: The original radio made in the Soviet Union that he used to listen to as a child growing up in Anhui Province. Yang Yi: His hometown of Huáinán, nowadays most famous for the Piano House building. Yang Yi: His “JustPod” podcasting company, and two of the podcasts he personally hosts: “Left-Right” and “Go! LIVE”. Yang Yi: Two of the American storytelling podcasts that he referenced in our discussion: “This American Life” and “Serial”. Yi believes China is still waiting for its “Serial moment” that will allow podcasts to achieve mainstream popularity in China. Yang Yi: There are a couple of storytelling shows breaking through in the China podcast space at the moment. The most famous of these is 故事FM. Yang Yi: The overwhelmingly most popular podcasting host and distributor in China is Ximalaya (喜马拉雅). Yang Yi's favourite China fact: The Confucian concept of 中庸之一 (Zhōngyōng zhīyī - Doctrine of the Mean). Yang Yi's favourite word or phrase in Chinese: 好吧 (Hǎo ba), which means something like, “well... alright then”. That's in contrast to 好的 (Hǎo de) which is a more emphatic way of saying yes or OK. If Yang Yi left China, he would miss the efficiency of life, including the Shanghai metro system. The thing that surprises Yang Yi about modern life in China is the advancement of video production apps like 抖音 (Dǒuyīn - Tiktok). Yang Yi's favourite place to eat: The 大肠汤 (Dàcháng tāng - Pig's large intestine soup) restaurant around the corner from his home. Yang Yi's best recent purchase: The book "The Fifth Risk" by Michael Lewis. Yang Yi's favourite song to sing at KTV (karaoke): 最炫民族风 (Zuì xuàn mínzú fēng - The Most Dazzling Folk Style) by 凤凰传奇 (Fènghuáng chuánqí - Phoenix Legend). Yang Yi's favourite China-related information source: 财新传媒 (Cáixīn Media). Yang Yi's selfie with Oscar.

Yang Yi is a Chinese editor, a broadcaster, and one of the trailblazers in the new world of podcasting in China. He is the host of two podcasts, a culture-themed show called "Left-Right", and a show called "Go! LIVE" where he invites reporters in China to share their eperiences in journalism. And he is also co-founder of the "JustPod" company, which currently produces four original and three branded podcasts. Yi and I discuss his personal experiences of growing up with broadcast media in China, and he makes some great observations about China's media landscape from the 1990s to today. While our interview was recorded many weeks before the coronavirus outbreak, some of the things we discuss will resonate with anyone observing how the issue is being handled in the Chinese and Western media. Yang Yi's object: A radio of course. Yang Yi's favourite WeChat sticker: This esoteric one of Jiang Zemin. You may need to listen to the episode for more information about this one!(Add @oscar10877 on WeChat to join the Group and see the original sticker) Yang Yi: The original radio made in the Soviet Union that he used to listen to as a child growing up in Anhui Province. Yang Yi: His hometown of Huáinán, nowadays most famous for the Piano House building. Yang Yi: His “JustPod” podcasting company, and two of the podcasts he personally hosts: “Left-Right” and “Go! LIVE”. Yang Yi: Two of the American storytelling podcasts that he referenced in our discussion: “This American Life” and “Serial”. Yi believes China is still waiting for its “Serial moment” that will allow podcasts to achieve mainstream popularity in China. Yang Yi: There are a couple of storytelling shows breaking through in the China podcast space at the moment. The most famous of these is 故事FM. Yang Yi: The overwhelmingly most popular podcasting host and distributor in China is Ximalaya (喜马拉雅). Yang Yi's favourite China fact: The Confucian concept of 中庸之一 (Zhōngyōng zhīyī - Doctrine of the Mean). Yang Yi's favourite word or phrase in Chinese: 好吧 (Hǎo ba), which means something like, “well... alright then”. That's in contrast to 好的 (Hǎo de) which is a more emphatic way of saying yes or OK. If Yang Yi left China, he would miss the efficiency of life, including the Shanghai metro system. The thing that surprises Yang Yi about modern life in China is the advancement of video production apps like 抖音 (Dǒuyīn - Tiktok). Yang Yi's favourite place to eat: The 大肠汤 (Dàcháng tāng - Pig's large intestine soup) restaurant around the corner from his home. Yang Yi's best recent purchase: The book "The Fifth Risk" by Michael Lewis. Yang Yi's favourite song to sing at KTV (karaoke): 最炫民族风 (Zuì xuàn mínzú fēng - The Most Dazzling Folk Style) by 凤凰传奇 (Fènghuáng chuánqí - Phoenix Legend). Yang Yi's favourite China-related information source: 财新传媒 (Cáixīn Media). Yang Yi's selfie with Oscar.

On today's Defence Deconstructed Podcast, we discuss how Defence policy will come into play during the upcoming election with CGAI-fellow Eugene Lang. Defence Deconstructed is part of the CGAI Podcast Network and today's episode is brought to you by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). Subscribe to the CGAI Podcast Network on iTunes, SoundCloud, or wherever else you can find Podcasts! Bios: Dave Perry - David Perry is the Senior Analyst and Vice President with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. Eugene Lang - Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was chief of staff to two ministers of National Defence in the Chrétien and Martin governments and served as an official in the Department of Finance. Related Links: - "Funding Defence for the Age of Accelerations" by CGAI-fellow Ross Fetterly [CGAI Policy Perspective] (https://www.cgai.ca/funding_defence_for_the_age_of_accelerations) - "Elections & Defence Policy -- A Discussion with Ian Brodie" with Dave Perry and Ian Brodie [CGAI Podcast] (https://www.cgai.ca/elections_defence_policy_a_discussion_with_ian_brodie) Book Recommendations: Eugene Lang: "The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy" by Michael Lewis (https://www.amazon.ca/Fifth-Risk-Undoing-Democracy/dp/1324002646/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Fifth+Risk&qid=1565363542&s=gateway&sr=8-1) Recording Date: July 17th, 2019 Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on Linkedin. Head over to our website at www.cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Jared Maltais and Jay Rankin. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

What do we read when not busy reading our book club books? Listen in to find out. This episode it's a wide-ranging list as we report in on Lily Allen's My Thoughts Exactly, The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis, the provocative Poverty Safari by Darren McGarvey, short stories from the Orkney Islands, French classic Bonjour Tristesse, and the indulgent, laugh-out-loud Why Mummy Drinks by Gill Sims. Oh yes, and The Female Persuasion by Meg Wollitzer too.   Get in touch with us at thebookclubreview@gmail.com, follow us on Instagram @thebookclubreviewpod or leave us a comment on iTunes, we'd love to hear from you. Subscribe and never miss an episode.    

Not many commercially successful authors write about details of the federal bureaucracy. They don't sell very well in bookstores and airports. But best-selling author Michael Lewis has done just that. His book "Fifth Risk" looks at vital federal missions few realize even exist and how they've fared under the Trump administration. He joined Federal Drive with Tom Temin to discuss.

Lucas and Matt discuss the demise of FilmStruck, a "business decision" made in the aftermath of the ATt&T and Time Warner merger. The fat cats continue to swallow up all that sweet, premium content, limiting our imaginative and cultural possibilities. Then, we take a look at Monica Hileman's review of Michael Lewis's book The Fifth Risk, and talk about the importance and shortcomings of all that red tape. Matt then gives us a long read of Jay Atkinson's review of the thrilling documentary film Free Solo, about Alex Honnold's attempt to climb El Capitan with no ropes.